Historiology: Difference between revisions
(Created page with "Science of historical interpretation. H. establishes the prior conditions within which all interpretation of the temporal event takes place. It therefore deals with a prior co...") |
No edit summary |
||
| Line 1: | Line 1: | ||
Science of historical interpretation. H. establishes the prior conditions within which all interpretation of the temporal event takes place. It therefore deals with a prior construction that is necessary in order to reach the “events themselves.” One of the most important points is that of comprehending the “interference” that the observer carries out on the studied object. In h. the notion of temporarily and of landscape of formation | Science of historical interpretation. H. establishes the prior conditions within which all interpretation of the temporal event takes place. It therefore deals with a prior construction that is necessary in order to reach the “events themselves.” One of the most important points is that of comprehending the “interference” that the observer carries out on the studied object. In h. the notion of temporarily and of landscape of [[formation]] is reviewed, which the historian bases himself on in order to form the perspective from which he observes or describes. One of the problems of h. arises when it is comprehended that the description of the historian’s landscape is also made from a perspective. However, this meta-landscape makes it possible to establish comparisons among homogenized elements, insofar as it makes them belong to one same category, which is not presumptive, but has been fixed beforehand. | ||
[[category: Dictionary of New Humanism]] | [[category: Dictionary of New Humanism]] | ||
Latest revision as of 13:35, 13 November 2017
Science of historical interpretation. H. establishes the prior conditions within which all interpretation of the temporal event takes place. It therefore deals with a prior construction that is necessary in order to reach the “events themselves.” One of the most important points is that of comprehending the “interference” that the observer carries out on the studied object. In h. the notion of temporarily and of landscape of formation is reviewed, which the historian bases himself on in order to form the perspective from which he observes or describes. One of the problems of h. arises when it is comprehended that the description of the historian’s landscape is also made from a perspective. However, this meta-landscape makes it possible to establish comparisons among homogenized elements, insofar as it makes them belong to one same category, which is not presumptive, but has been fixed beforehand.